MSGJ

talk

Previous discussion was archived at User talk:MSGJ/Archive 1 on 2021-02-01.

Dear can you correct the the family name on this page

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q21620698

The name on this page is wrong, look at the sources and type the correct name

I saw the reverted change on José Mourinho (Q79983). You are right, it wasn't the correct identifier.

I've added the correct one: MILV329905

Thanks for reporting!

Hi, just to let you know that Pi admin bot is now running to maintain PfD (archiving, updating watchlist notice). It runs daily around 5 UTC. Please don't manually archive things now, as that might confuse the bot. Also, for the 'on hold' items, once they're done it's simplest to move them back to the main list and the bot will then archive them.

I've closed a few discussions to waiting to see what the bot does ...

OK, great, the bot should pick them up tomorrow morning.

Okay thanks. I'll keep an eye on it

Hi, just seeing your comment at Wikidata:Properties for deletion/P10241 - Wikidata:Requests for comment has a huge backlog going back to 2018. I was wondering about setting up a bot-archiving process for this, plus auto-updating the watchlist notice at Template:Watchlist summary/RFC - but there's way too many to be listed on the watchlist right now, and it needs an admin to work through the backlog to resolve old ones. Interested?

You can teach me property creator and how to work on it

You could read Wikidata:Property creation and then discuss some of the proposals at Wikidata:Property proposal

I've updated a few pages to remove a span that was not needed. Just wondering if you could mark the changes for translation. Thanks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• Template:User ancient Greece/text
• Template:User ancient Rome/text
• Template:User books/text
• Template:User chemistry/text
• Template:User companies/text
• Template:User France/text

All done

🎶 Where are the statements, where are the statements? 🎶

I have added a statement, I have added a statement

Hi!

I saw you reverted one of my edits on Q107291952, and yes I agree. "KMU202205052" is a valid NLK identifier for an album. I deleted it to avoid warnings on Wikipedia's pages until the regexp constraint for Property:P5034 is fixed. The red message doesn't look that good... The constraint is really not permissive enough right now, but I'm not sure how wide the scope should be. For instance, CNTS-00126370663 looks like a valid song identifier as well, though the form is quite different...

Are you planing to do something about it?

Hi, yes. I have already updated the format on the sandbox of the authority control template to just check for three capital letters at the beginning. I've no idea about the CNTS one though!

Thanks! I've looked up a few Korean songs, all of them had the same ID format. See CNTS-00073887932, CNTS-00092632499, CNTS-00082116311... It might be useful to allow this pattern as well?

Yep, so CNTS- followed by 11 digits?

Most likely... They wouldn't add zeros at the beginning if the number of digits wasn't fixed, I guess?

ARLHS: BAR1, BAR2, BAR3, ...

BAR001, BAR002, BAR003, ... what's the difference?

Hi MSGJ,

User:Vojtěch Dostál is an extremely merited editor, whose judgement may be trusted more than Dan Polansky's, see also Topic:Xjwypbqygh7cb922. May you please fixate the protected state to Vojtěch's version?

No need to. I know I should have discussed this first. I have no intention to do any more changes to the item, so maybe the protection is not necessary anymore.

Hello –

This edit to "navigational aid" (Q3565782) was in error. The properties instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279) define key ontological relationships. Because subclass of (P279) is transitive, such errors lead to numerous false inferences (for example, see this tree of parent classes). Please review the usage instructions on these two properties, and Help:Basic membership properties. In particular, note that "A" is only a subclass of "B" if all instances of "A" are also instances of "B". There is often another property better suited to expressing the relationship you had in mind; you can search for one here. In this case, has use (P366) works better. Thanks!

Yes, thank you I know how P31 and P279 work!

The edit suggests that on 21 November 2021, you didn't, but if you feel you do now, then you can happily ignore this. Swpb (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)